I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

What do you do when the Congressional Research Service, the completely non-partisan arm of the Library of Congress that has been advising Congress—and only Congress—on matters of policy and law for nearly a century, produces a research study that finds absolutely no correlation between the top tax rates and economic growth, thereby destroying a key tenet of conservative economic theory?

If you are a Republican member of the United States Senate, you do everything in your power to suppress that report—particularly when it comes less than two months before a national election where your candidate is selling this very economic theory as the basis for his candidacy.

Initially released on September 14, 2012, the study—authored by Thomas Hungerford who is a specialist in public finance at the C.R.S.—correlated the historical fluctuations of the highest income tax rates and tax rates on capital gains dating back to World War II with the economic growth (or lack of the same) that followed.

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Not surprisingly, the results of the study caught the attention of a great many conservatives—so much so that, according to a New York Times piece, Republican’s in the United States Senate successfully pressured the Congressional Research Service to withdraw the report shortly after it was released. The withdrawal came over the objection of the CRS economic team and the author of the study.

The Times further reports that, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson, Senator McConnell—along with additional GOP senators— “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws,” adding that additional people outside of Congress were also criticizing the study.

The nature of these alleged flaws?

That the report included terms such as “the Bush tax cuts” and references to “tax cuts for the rich.”

Added Antonia Ferrier, spokesperson for the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, “There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective. We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”

While a spokesperson for the C.R.S. refused to comment on the discussions between the Senate Republicans and her agency, she did confirm that the report was no longer in ‘official circulation’. However, the New York Times reports that a source requesting anonymity confirmed that the decision to pull the study was done against the advice of the economics division and that the author, Mr. Hungerford, stood by the report’s findings.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats republished the study following a letter sent to the C.R.S. by the ranking Democratic tax expert in the House, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), which reads, in part—

“I was deeply disturbed to hear that Mr. Hungerford’s report was taken down in response to political pressure from Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report’s factual findings and conclusion. It would be completely inappropriate for CRS to censor one of its analysts simply because participants in the political process found his or her conclusion in conflict with their partisan position. I would like your explanation as to why this report was removed from the CRS website, who made that decision and what considerations led to it.”

For almost 100 years, the Congressional Research Service has worked to assist Congress by providing well-researched and accurate data to be utilized in the creation of important public policy. It has done so when Congress was controlled by Democrats and when Congress has been under the control of Republicans. No matter what party was in charge, the C.R.S. has always endeavored to keep politics out of their work in the effort to provide data that would inform and advance our public policy.

Apparently, solid, well researched data no longer matters—at least not when it comes to the Congressional Republicans.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I just read the Times article. I think this fellow gives himself away when he says that he currently (before any taxes have been raised) turns down more offers than he accepts. So, this guy already doesn’t want work when taxes are still low. If you imagine that this professor is the typical high earner, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you! High earners are rarely motivated by their take home pay. Trust me…I know. The notion that I would stop working hard because I’m paying a few more dollars in taxes (and yes, I would be one of those who would be impacted by the Obama tax increases) is absolutely laughable. Like this professor, I could have stopped working years ago-an idea that is unthinkable to me. I work-and I work hard-because that is what I love to do. I know many very high earning people. Not a one of them would stop what they are doing if taxes went up.

I’m wondering, how it is possible for you to label Obama “The smallest government spender since Eisenhower” while, at the same time, a fellow Forbes writer asserts the exact opposite? Obviously, it’s impossible for both to be correct.

I have read both pieces, and I am still genuinely confused. Could you shed some light on this matter? This is a very important issue to me, and I’d appreciate your input.

It’s, obviously, very possible! Forbes writers disagree all the time. We are under no obligation to share the same point of view which is what makes Forbes an interesting-and hopefully- enlightening magazine. Not surprisingly, I would argue that that Mr. Ferrera’s piece argues around my own without ever really showing where I’m wrong-despite saying that in the headline. It’s up to the reader to make a determination as to who has this right.

The writer who originally made the idiotic claim that Obama is not a big spender used a trick (or maybe he just parroted what Democrats in DC came up with). In any case, he assigned first year budget numbers from the Obama administration to the departed Bush administration’s proposed budget – utter nonsense. So when Obama increased spending, compared to his own (mislabeled) budget it wasn’t by much – ergo the claim. I’m really kind of surprised Mr. Ungar didn’t pull or disown his own article – I assume he was fooled by the deception.

What a remarkable comment. 1. If the reputation of the CRS as a completely non-partisan organization is difficult for you, then I’ll just have to live with your disappointment. 2. So, because an economist has supported a political party, he is not a specialist in finance? I hardly know where to begin. Mark Zandi has given to John McCain and yet, I would never question his reputation as an economist. The list goes on and on. But more enlightening is that you did not see fit to register your concern over one of Mitt Romney’s largest bundlers and contributors being the CEO of the company that owns the voting machines in one of Ohio’s most critical electoral counties! So, that’s fine with you but an economist who gave a contribution is clearly unfit to have conduct a non-partisan economic study? Seriously, sometimes you guys slay me.

I don’t think it’s possible for any entity to be “completely non-partisan.” At the risk of being finicky, I think “non-partisan” is a more accurate wording.

Regarding voter machines, it certainly is disconcerting to see the potential for fraud in Ohio. However, by no means does this association lead me to believe that it will happen. Similarly, the fact that Mr. Hungerford supports Democrats does not render him incapable of producing a valid study. We all have our biases; the key is to not let them obscure the truth revealed by the data. In this case, having read the study, I’m convinced that its conclusions are valid.

Rick suggests (in one of his comments) that the article is more emphatically concerned with the actions of the GOP’s acts to suppress the CRS report; nevertheless, the title of his articles puts into play the contents of the report itself. So much of the conversation has turned towards the validity of the report, and the event of attempted suppression has taken a back seat. So be it. Anyway, I don’t think anyone would disagree that information should be censored or qualified by “authorities” that would result in its being suppressed.

That leaves the report, and what’s true about it or not. Many commenters disqualified the report on bases which are outside of the scope of the report, which simply presents a thorough explanation on how tax reduction for the wealthy, has provided no meaningful economic benefit, (and other points which I omit here).

The focus, in my opinion, should be far broader than most people look at when they present economic opinions, as these represent no more than tweaking a system that basically is not equitable. And by this I mean, if a population produces x volume of good and services, that population should be partaking in the enjoyment of that production. Case in point is home ownership. How is it possible that the nation can build so many homes, and there be so many people that can’t get one? We, as an economic society have the resources to build enough homes for every one (or produce food, or whatever), yet a very large percentage of the population can’t get any. How can that be equitable? Restating it at a more fundamental level: how can one work in a farm, and not be able to share in its production enough to support himself and his family?

Going back to the tweaking… a case study, such as the CRS report can only look at statistics on the way a system has behaved over the years. One can hardly apply past behavior as a fool proof predictive tool. For example, back in the 50′s and 60′s, when one had extra cash, investing in a new line of production was considered the more rational course (still is, but people have gone to college to learn that investing in securities is more profitable).

In the case of some artist or singer stopping work after he’s earned enough to reach the tax threshold isn’t the norm, unless their accountants all went to the same business school. Others say that all real innovations are practically coerced by taxing or not taxing… in other words, money and wealth is behind the motivation of innovations. This is not true. The greatest inventions that have most benefited mankind has been done by people who were only motivated by the thrill of creativity and contribution to the society. (I’m not going to argue this point here, as there is ample evidence; for now, check out this video: http://dotsub.com/view/e1fddf77-5d1d-45b7-81be-5841ee5c386e, and other Dan Pink talks on Motivation).

Thus, there’s no one “stimulus” that invariably produces the same result, year after year, generation after generation. Behavior and reaction to economic events are generally the result of acquired or indoctrinated values.

When you reduce taxes for the rich, as Reagan so cunningly sold us, the extra money is supposed to “trickle down” to the rest of the society. You irrigate the frond, and the water will eventually get to the roots. Why would anyone ever buy into that rationale? And why irrigate the frond when you can just as easily, and more effective/efficiently irrigate the roots?

So instead of tweaking… Don’t we need to revamp the entire way we think the subject. For example, the method of money distribution through the society… We have government “buy goods/services” from the public, give them contracts to produce this, that or the other; we borrow from banks or Fed, we collect the good, and now we pay for the contract. Then we tax, and redistribute the wealth/tax income through programs… all with the supposed intention to fuel and grow the economy.

We’d do a faster job to have people/companies that need something, just go out and sign a voucher to the supplier, and get the stuff. The suppliers redeems the vouchers, or just goes elsewhere to sign other vouches… etc. much more can be said for this method… perhaps this is not the forum for it… much less the conversation we’re having about the CRS report, which explicitly states is limited in its scope.

My intent in not to present THE way… but to stimulate thinking for different ways of distribution.